In situations where ignorance and confusion are the main obstacles that have to be overcome, a prudential publication of information (as OSV has done) is the best path to a speedy solution. May that hold true now.

Watch C-SPAN between 6-7p* EST tonight.

When the U.S. House completes business, Rep. Chris Smith will host a 1-hour Pro-life Special Order in the House of Representatives.

During this time House members will speak on the subject of taxpayer subsidies for the abortion industry and what their constituents are unknowingly supporting when millions of tax dollars are funneled to organizations like Planned Parenthood.

What is Special Order?

The first 2 hours at the end of legislative business each day are reserved for Republican and Democrat leadership for Special Order business. Tonight the Republican leadership has given its hour to Smith and others to speak for the unborn. It was kept quiet until now to ward off PP types from crashing the event.

*The Special Order should start very soon after the last series of votes. The timing cannot be predicted exactly but will begin sometime between 6 and 7 pm.

The Associated Press yesterday inappropriately associated pro-life activists with animal rights vandals and arsonists, demonstrating yet again MSM doesn't have an inkling who we are.

Pro-life picketers do not hide themselves, destroy property, threaten or hurt people, and certainly are not filled with "rage." On the contrary, we pray. Nor are most animal rights groups violent, although the AP implicates them as well:

In the hills above the University of CA's Berkeley campus, 9 protesters gathered in front of the home of a toxicology professor, their faces covered with scarves and hoods despite the warm spring weather.

One scrawled "killer" in chalk on the scientist's doorstep, while another hurled insults through a bullhorn and announced, "Your neighbor kills animals!" Someone shattered a window.

Borrowing the kind of tactics used by anti-abortion demonstrators, animal rights activists are increasingly taking their rage straight to scientists' front doors....

Over the past couple of years, more and more researchers who experiment on animals have been harassed and terrorized in their own homes, with weapons that include firebombs, flooding and acid....

Nor do we condone killing. Sheesh:

Accompanying the attacks is increasingly tough talk from activists such as Dr. Jerry Vlasak, a spokesman for the Animal Liberation Front .... In an interview with The AP, he said he is not encouraging anyone to commit murder, but "if you had to hurt somebody or intimidate them or kill them, it would be morally justifiable."

Here would be the only place we agree, if "preborn baby" were substituted for "animal":

"An animal has as much of a right to life as we do. To take a life without provocation is immoral, it's violent, there's no excuse for it," said Jacob Black, 23, an organizer of demonstrations at the homes of UC Berkeley researchers. "To name and shame these people as morally bankrupt individuals in our society is key."

But we're not about violence, as attributed in the article to animal rights zealots:

[A] protest in the Berkeley hills left a window of the toxicology professor's home shattered along with the window of a neighbor, who sprayed demonstrators with a garden hose to drive them away....

Masked protesters converged on [UCLA] scientists' homes late at night, banging on doors, throwing firecrackers and chanting, "We know where you sleep," according to court documents.

Threatening calls and e-mails followed. Firebombs were left near homes 3 times; 2 failed to go off, while the third charred a front door. One professor's home was flooded when a garden hose was shoved through a broken window....

Recently, federal investigators joined a probe into an alleged February assault against the husband of a University of CA, Santa Cruz breast-cancer researcher who experiments on mice. Police said masked activists pounded on the family's front door during a birthday party for their young daughter, and one threw a punch when the husband tried to force them to leave.

The ALF claimed responsibility for dousing a home... with glass-eating acid and covering it with animal rights slogans. Leventhal estimated the damage at $20,000. At another home, the group claimed responsibility for putting glue in the house's locks and pouring salt to destroy the front lawn....

On the contrary, the pro-life movement is the most peaceful social justice movement in American history. Every day there are hundreds of prayer vigils or protests held in every part of the country without incident... unless a pro-abort starts something.

The abortion industry has to some extent waged a successful campaign to malign the pro-life movement as violent. I only mind when pro-lifers worry too much about it and bend too far backwards to try to prove we're not, or disdain involvement in activism for fear of the label.

[Vandalism photos courtesy of the AP; photo of pro-lifers courtesy of The Madison Catholic Herald]

The Christian Defense Coalition has launched a campaign featuring this ad exposing one of Barack Obama's many far left abortion positions:

Quoting a CBS News story on this today...

Under the present version of the Hyde amendment, which was introduced in 1976 to limit federal funding of abortion, Medicaid now covers abortions only in cases of rape, incest, and life endangerment, according to the National Abortion Federation.

As a state senator in Illinois, Obama voted against a bill similar to the Hyde amendment that prohibited the use of state funding to pay for abortions.

That last sentence was inaccurate. Had to be purposeful. All reporter Brian Montopoli had to do was place a period after "Hyde Amendment," but no, he went on to incorrectly describe the bill Obama opposed as being a blanket mandate against taxpayer funded abortions in IL, which it was not - to make it appear as if Obama voted reasonably? No, the bill allowed taxpayer funding of abortions for sexual assault and life of the mother. The bill language is here.

Nevertheless, a January 2008 FRC commissioned poll indicated 56% would be "less likely" to vote for a presidential candidate supporting taxpayer funded abortions compared to 31% "more likely."

This is a good anti-Obama talking point.

A CNN reporter interviewing me a couple weeks ago about Barack Obama's opposition as state senator to the Illinois Born Alive Infants Protection Act groaned more than once that this topic was "complicated."

She was referring to Obama's various explanations through the years for blocking Born Alive and lately his outright denial that obstructing legislation declaring live aborted babies legal persons had anything to do with endorsing their death.

I finally emailed her, "It is clear: Obama strongly opposed legislation to protect abortion survivors. This is horrible, so of course he will try to make it 'complicated,' but it is not."

Obama has recently been ratcheting up the obfuscations....

Obama may have set a new record in a July 1 Relevant magazine interview, rattling four excuses in one soundbite, all previously outlined in my January 2008 column, "Obama's 10 reasons for supporting infanticide" - Nos. 1, 6, 7 and 10!...

Continue reading my column today, ""Botch an abortion? Obama would let baby die," on WorldNetDaily.com.

Holly Gatling of South Carolina Citizens for Life forwarded a link to the following archived 1957 Mike Wallace interview with Margaret Sanger. I'd never seen Sanger live. I'm not sure how long the interview lasted, 30-45 minutes, but I was spellbound. (Sanger was one itchy woman.)

Sanger was clearly hostile to the Catholic Church. Her talking points were remarkably similar to her Planned Parenthood progeny. She saw pregnancy prevention and population control as the cure for problems such as world hunger. She disagreed that birth control would lead to promiscuity.

The question is, 50 years later, where is any proof Sanger was right? Isn't there, rather, overwhelming proof she was wrong?

The Philip Morris cigarette pitches... wow, now those dated this piece more than anything else. Click on graphic below to link to video:

Interestingly, Sanger refused to call infidelity or murder sin but strongly condemned as sin bearing sick children or bringing children into problematic homes, i.e., eugenics. When Wallace asked Sanger if she believed in sin...

Sanger: I think the greatest sin in the world is bringing children into the world - that have disease from their parents, that have no chance in the world to be a human being practically. Delinquents, prisoners, all sorts of things just marked when they're born. That to me is the greatest sin - that people can - can commit....

Wallace: Do you believe infidelity is a sin?...

Sanger: I don't know about infidelity, that has many personalities to it - and what a person's own belief is - you can't, I couldn't generalize on any of those things as being sins.

Wallace: Murder is a sin.

Sanger: Well, I naturally think murder, whether it's a sin or not, is a terrible act.

Of course we think of murder when we think of Sanger and abortion, but she obviously did not. Sanger also had a new-age view of God, saying we each have divinity within us, although again, she obviously placed preborn children in a non-divine category.